0
0.0
Jun 6, 2024
06/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
the two amici requested oral argument representing amici who supported donald trump notion, there was an amicus brief filed on behalf of jack smith side of this. and as people said, you know, if the other guys are going to get to argue, then we want to argue, too. and judge eileen cannon did grant that. we will have someone arguing, as well, who is supporting jack smith. >> again, i am straining to sort of communicate this to nonlegal people. i think legal people are like, every time cannon does something more or less, legal people are like okay, this is a weird one. she is running her own little supreme court there on this constitutional issue. she is a district court judge. here's a look at 2018, and other federal judge was a trump appointee, holds constitutionality of mueller appointment. it is settled resident, this has been challenged for. this is setting before the supreme court. the supreme court wants to overturn it, which lord knows they might, they can't but as the district court judge, she's got fair marching instructions here. she is not wrestling with something that hasn'
the two amici requested oral argument representing amici who supported donald trump notion, there was an amicus brief filed on behalf of jack smith side of this. and as people said, you know, if the other guys are going to get to argue, then we want to argue, too. and judge eileen cannon did grant that. we will have someone arguing, as well, who is supporting jack smith. >> again, i am straining to sort of communicate this to nonlegal people. i think legal people are like, every time...
0
0.0
Jun 6, 2024
06/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
to invite amici who don't represent an entity like a foreign government, to invite amici to participaten in the supreme court in 35 years between 1980 and 2015, out of the over 4000 arguments the court held, they had amici present argument in 1000 of those cases, but only nine of those were people not representing a governmental entity or foreign sovereign. that is how exceedingly rare it is. >> usually when this happens it is like texas, you are not a party to this, but you have an interest. or the department of justice. this is just like you are a guy with some takes. takes on the constitutionality. you are not connected to the case at all, you just have some opinions about it. >> that's right and each does express the interest they represent and why they think what they have to say would be helpful to the court. that is what they say in their motion to file the brief. i am not surprised the court allowed some of these briefs, but to give them 30 minutes each of argument time in what is now scheduled for a full day of arguments on just one part of this issue, whether the appointment o
to invite amici who don't represent an entity like a foreign government, to invite amici to participaten in the supreme court in 35 years between 1980 and 2015, out of the over 4000 arguments the court held, they had amici present argument in 1000 of those cases, but only nine of those were people not representing a governmental entity or foreign sovereign. that is how exceedingly rare it is. >> usually when this happens it is like texas, you are not a party to this, but you have an...
0
0.0
Jun 21, 2024
06/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
but what the argument coming from the trump team as well as the amici that's submitted briefs and their support. we saw some of those notes coming now from reporters afternoon was basically that the court's gone it wrong since the 70s, that the special counsel can't be set up the way they've been throughout all those decades that the nixon ruling was wrong and everything that came after it was wrong, that even if the original independent counsels from the 80s and 90s were a little different, and those were made the ones that have come out recently, like molar and her and smith are all unconstitutional and that they should be thrown out. it's not going to go anywhere in the end, even if by some chance judge cannon war to rule in trump's favor on this, i absolutely expect the 11th circuit would refer. but again, it's the delay that mattered and they got to day and a half long hearing out of what should have easily been resolved a month or two ago on papers, you sort of you outlined that you thought this would go to an appellate court and that it would get overturned. but let's say for the
but what the argument coming from the trump team as well as the amici that's submitted briefs and their support. we saw some of those notes coming now from reporters afternoon was basically that the court's gone it wrong since the 70s, that the special counsel can't be set up the way they've been throughout all those decades that the nixon ruling was wrong and everything that came after it was wrong, that even if the original independent counsels from the 80s and 90s were a little different,...
0
0.0
Jun 29, 2024
06/24
by
KRON
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
oregon congresswoman susie and bone amici says finding and jailing homeless people won't help them find housing. what we really need to focus on his solutions. and this is going to make harder for people when they have fine or a penalty. >> the court's ruling reverses a lower court decision that stopped the city from enforcing its public camping ordinances, calling it cruel and unusual punishment. >> writing for the majority justice neil gorsuch said fines and jail time are not cruel or unusual because they're not designed to increase, quote, terror pain or disgrace and are commonly used punishments across the country. justice sonia sotomayor disagreed, writing, quote, sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime for some people sleeping outside is their only option to new day for california, california congressman kevin kiley praised the ruling. he says he's seen the impacts of homelessness in his own state. you have families that have almost encampments walking their kids to school. kylie hopes this decision gives cities the tools to turn that around, protect public health to a guard
oregon congresswoman susie and bone amici says finding and jailing homeless people won't help them find housing. what we really need to focus on his solutions. and this is going to make harder for people when they have fine or a penalty. >> the court's ruling reverses a lower court decision that stopped the city from enforcing its public camping ordinances, calling it cruel and unusual punishment. >> writing for the majority justice neil gorsuch said fines and jail time are not...
0
0.0
Jun 28, 2024
06/24
by
KRON
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
oregon congresswoman susie and bone amici says finding and jailing homeless people won't help them find housing. what we really need to focus on his solutions. and this is going to make harder for people when they have fine or a penalty. >> the court's ruling reverses a lower court decision that stopped the city from enforcing its public camping ordinances, calling it cruel and unusual punishment. >> writing for the majority justice neil gorsuch said fines and jail time are not cruel or unusual because they're not designed to increase, quote, terror pain or disgrace and are commonly used punishments across the country. justice sonia sotomayor disagreed, writing, quote, sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime for some people sleeping outside is their only option to new day for california, california congressman kevin kiley praised the ruling. he says he's seen the impacts of homelessness in his own state. you have families that have almost encampments walking their kids to school. kylie hopes this decision gives cities the tools to turn that around, protect public health guard again
oregon congresswoman susie and bone amici says finding and jailing homeless people won't help them find housing. what we really need to focus on his solutions. and this is going to make harder for people when they have fine or a penalty. >> the court's ruling reverses a lower court decision that stopped the city from enforcing its public camping ordinances, calling it cruel and unusual punishment. >> writing for the majority justice neil gorsuch said fines and jail time are not...
0
0.0
Jun 12, 2024
06/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
the justices what it was that the billionaire interest wants through these flotillas of front group amici, who would then not disclose who was really behind them. in one occasion, a brief was filed by an entity which is not even a real corporate entity it it was the fictitious name under virginia corporate law for a separate corporate entity under which fictitious name that other corporate entity had registered to do business. they didn't even disclose to the court and to the other parties who the real corporate entity was for whom this was the fictitious name. and, just last week the judicial conference announced its new rule demanding significantly better disclosure pulled the bad news is we have a rogue court captured by special interest in that over and over again in a appalling pattern, continuing to follow the direction of the billionaires in the fund groups through which they operate. the good news is the public is fed up congress is fed up, mostly, and the judicial conference is beginning to tighten up the rules on the supreme court justices. i will close by pointing out that the
the justices what it was that the billionaire interest wants through these flotillas of front group amici, who would then not disclose who was really behind them. in one occasion, a brief was filed by an entity which is not even a real corporate entity it it was the fictitious name under virginia corporate law for a separate corporate entity under which fictitious name that other corporate entity had registered to do business. they didn't even disclose to the court and to the other parties who...
0
0.0
Jun 29, 2024
06/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
there's not a dirtonflict with everything that federal government requires we allow which the amici positions as it prevents a lot ofs and circumstances in which the l government would require them and they disagree with you onacts anyway you say no conflict because we are d exactlyr allowing with the federal government allows and you say no conflict because the fedevernment of the situwanted states to be able to set the standard. i g don't understand how that's even conceivable given the standards given the statute that is co into displays the prerogative. samef can't convince you on this but me at a third. the spe clause condition natures requires congress to speak clearly and unequivocally that it's imposing an abortion mandate. that's not in the statute. senate does thatabortion different? what do you mean? they say provide whatever is necessary to stabilize and you are saying that have to provide whatever is necessary including abortion and that's the only that's taken account of hear? >> what i'm saying is when we look at the phrase available and wh i means the administration is saying
there's not a dirtonflict with everything that federal government requires we allow which the amici positions as it prevents a lot ofs and circumstances in which the l government would require them and they disagree with you onacts anyway you say no conflict because we are d exactlyr allowing with the federal government allows and you say no conflict because the fedevernment of the situwanted states to be able to set the standard. i g don't understand how that's even conceivable given the...
0
0.0
Jun 27, 2024
06/24
by
CSPAN2
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
there's not a direct confl with everything that federal government requires we allow whic amici positions as it prevents a lot of things a circumstances in which the federal gont would require them and they disagree with you on the factsy you say no conflict because we are doing exactly or ag with the federal government allows you say no conflict because the federal govern of the situation wanttes to be able to set the standard. i guess i donerstand how that's even conceivable given the standards given the statute that is coming into displays the prerogative. same if i can't cvince you on this but me at a third. the spending clause condition nature this rs congress to speak clearly and unequivocally that it's imposing an abortion mandate. that's not in the stute. sena does that make abor different? what do you mean? theyay provide whatever is necessary to stabilize and you are saying that have to provide whatever is necessary including abortion and that's the only way that's taken account of hear? t i'm saying when we look at the phrase available and what it mea administration is saying t
there's not a direct confl with everything that federal government requires we allow whic amici positions as it prevents a lot of things a circumstances in which the federal gont would require them and they disagree with you on the factsy you say no conflict because we are doing exactly or ag with the federal government allows you say no conflict because the federal govern of the situation wanttes to be able to set the standard. i guess i donerstand how that's even conceivable given the...